ransom to try to rally tea party members in had exchange for opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, that's not acceptable. and it has not been through this process is there nothing in the boehner proposal which is acceptable to you? >> reopening the government and extending the debt ceiling is acceptable. >> the obamacare included in the senate deal? >> there's not a proposal in the house to talk about now, based on the press conference given by house republican leaders and based on some of the reporting i have seen since then, that's because they are now going back to add sweetners to the tea party members. and the better course of action is the one being undertaken by democrats and republicans in the senate. instead of trying to once again ensure full e to

republican support in the house, why not work on a measure that can get bipartisan support in the house, the way that republicans and democrats are trying to do in the senate? that's what is best for the american people. it's the kind of process that the president supports. with regards to proposals that we haven't seen -- >> you are talking about the short-term, debt ceiling increase but won't talk about the other. >> talking about the shutdown and raising the debt ceiling. that's what we have been talking about for weeks. we have said all along that we want a debt ceiling increase for as long as possible, because of the need to remove uncertainty from this process. the very uncertainty that has been created by this manufactured crisis is what we need to avoid as an economy

going forward and what washington needs to avoid, because it is already causing harm to the economy. it is already causing uncertainty among americans, which, in turn, has them making decisions about how they spend their money, which has a negative impact on potentially on the economy. and that creates a cascading effect which can only be bad. this is why congress needs to reopen the government and make sure that the full faith and credit of the united states is upheld, as it has been in the past. > what is the debt limit for raising the debt ceiling for default? >> those are two different things. on october 17, as the treasury secretary has noted, the united states runs out of borrowing authority. and beyond that point, we only have cash on hand available on

hand to pay our bills. the secretary of treasury has testified to this. so i would put to his statements about that fact. but as everyone knows, in order to meet all of our obligations as a country, the united states needs borrowing authority in order to make sure that all of our bills are paid. all of the obligations that congress has made, all of the bills that congress has incurred will come due. and if we can only pay those bills with cash on hand, that is a problem -- >> we have a countdown clock and counting down to midnight tomorrow, but is it midnight tomorrow? >> i would -- as much as i would like to improve the quality of the coubtdown clocks, i would have to refer you to treasury on the minute and hour. >> when does congress need to act by? do they need to pass something

by tomorrow? can something pass on thursday? will the sky fall on friday? when is the deadline? >> john, the deadline for avoiding uncertainty has past. the deadline for not shutting the government down has long since passed. congress has failed to act in a timely fashion but we hope they will act quickly to resolve these issues. >> when is too late? >> i'm not sure what that means. they need to act as soon as possible, because what is absolutely true is that every day we are in shutdown, there is harm done to hundreds of thousands of americans and indirectly to many, many more and direct harm to our economy. and every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we have never been, which is where the united states does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has

a negative impact. >> can bond holders be reassured -- receive their interest after tomorrow? >> those are the kinds of questions that are best directed to the treasury department. what is unquestionably is the case when people talk about priorityizations, they are talking about default by another name. when they talk about paying some bills and not others, they are entering a realm that this country has never been in, picking and chasing who gets paid and when they get paid and that has tremendous negative consequences to our economy. >> no question. do you have a game plan? this is no longer hypothetical. congress may not act whatever the deadline is. do you have a game plan of what to do? >> this is something the treasury department would have

jurisdiction over. i refer you to treasury. >> the suspension of the medical vice tax, referred to as a ransom payment. the speaker's office is saying this was proposed by white house negotiations last week. is that true or not? >> that is not true. what we have always said is that discussions of the medical device tax or other elements within the affordable care act that lawmakers want to talk about in an effort to improve the affordable care act, we are willing to have, but not as, in the context or ransom for opening the government. that is why a provision like that appears in the latest proposal that seems to be going nowhere from house republicans because it's an effort to buy votes from tea party republicans who shut this government down in the first place. >> they aren't telling the truth about that? >> the conversations that have been had here and up on capitol

hill on the medical device tax have been about our willingness as the president said and others in a broader context, not ransom or opening the government, not ransom for congress to pay its bills, but in the context of the ys we can improve other than defunding, dismantling. but the president isn't going to pay ransom to the tea party in order to open the government. > on thursday, the speaker's sman that there is repeal. >> that is just not the case. >> in connection with any other part of the plan, simply that it was asked for by the white house. >> you are saying separate from anything, the white house

proposed a change to the affordable care act? obviously, that's not the case. the issue of the medical device tax has been obviously in the air for the last several weeks. and when i have had this question and others have taken this question, we have made clear that we would be willing to talk about lawmakers who want to address that position -- that provision as well as other ideas that lawmakers might have about making changes to the affordable care act that strengthen it or improve it. when it comes to the medical device provision, those who rtray themselves as paragone propose making that change without acknowledging the fact that it would raise the deficit. but we have never said and we would agree to paying ransom making changes to the affordable

care act to the tea party who shut it down over their objections to the affordable care act. i have answered this three times. >> they have asked for repeal of the medical device. >> right. >> there are people on wall street and in washington who speak openly about the real clutch point being november 1 as opposed to thursday, 17th. >> on october 17th, as was made clear to congress from the treasury secretary, we cease to have borrowing authority. we have cash on hand. when everyone understands how this process works, that means we do not -- there is a scenario by which we will not be able to pay all of our bills because of the fact we need to borrow money to pay our bills and these are

bills that congress incurred and obligations that congress has made. this is not new debt or new spending. there is a lot of misrepresentation of that by those who claim that they came to congress with a mandate never to raise the debt ceiling. that has nothing to do with spending. >> has to do with the feeling that obligations like social security and other payments come down on november 1. you is thatuld tell we have a huge number of payments as a country that need to be made every day. and that there is a series of obligations that the united states government has to fulfill . for details about how that process works, i refer you to the treasury department. if anybody -- we have seen a lot of talk from debt limit deniers have ault deniers and they been shut down, by experts in

the field, including c.e.o.'s and financial industry experts, including many of whom i think tend to have the ear of republican lawmakers. it is absolutely not the responsible thing to do to allow us as a nation to enter territory we have never been in before, which is to not have the uthority to pay our bills. >> i wanted to ask you about the president's role in the final hours. yesterday there was supposed to be a meeting yesterday. today, just democratic leaders. senator mccain said a short time ago and he has been critical in recent days of his own party and said they need to come to a deal. he said it was a mistake for democrats who reject speaker boehner's proposal, in his words, a serious proposal. does the president plan to, a,

let the congressional leaders work this out in the final hours or does he see his role in the final hours because this is so critical, that he will play some direct role in trying to force a deal? >> i have no doubt that the president will be in contact with congressional leaders of both parties as this process continues. as you know but didn't include in your question, we postponed the meeting yesterday because of the progress that was being made in the senate. it is the president's intention and reflected by the meetings and conversations he is having with leaders and invited every member of congress to the white house last week for discussions on this issue to engage directly with lawmakers as they try to resolve this issue and try to do it in a way that hopefully reflects the bipartisan spirit we have seen in the senate process and we continue to hope that will bear fruit and produce something that can, in the end,

lead to a resolution that opens the government, provides the authority to the treasury for the united states to pay its bills so we can then focus on the bigger issues we face as a country, instead of getting distracted by these manufactured crises that only do harm to the economy and only do harm to the american people. and apparently, according to a lot of republican commentators do harm to the republican party. we need to get beyond this for the ache of the country. >> some of the big issues. n.s.a., "washington post" is saying they -- n.s.a. is collecting email contact lists not of foreigners but americans, how do you justify that? >> i'm not in a position to discuss specific tools or processes. but the national security is in the process of discovering and developing intelligence about foreign intelligence targets

such as terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. they are not interested in personal information about ordinary americans and they operate in accordance with rules or the foreign intelligence surveillance court designed to minimize the ack which situation, use or dissemination of any such information. e purpose is to discover intelligence of foreign targets. >> they are not interested in private information of americans except the "washington post" said they collect the telephone number of americans, street addresses of americans, business information, technical information. doesn't that contradict what you are saying? >> no. they are not interested in the personal information of ordinary americans. they target foreign intelligence -- their targets are terrorists,

drug smugglers and the like and they gather foreign intelligence. here are minimum -- procedures in place approved by the fisa court. information that might be collected as part of the effort to target terrorists and the like. >> last question, your predecessor robert gibbs had some interesting things to say about the health care law. he said it was botched and he said when it gets fixed, he hopes they fire some people. how do you react to that and since senator pat roberts has called for secretary sebelius to be fired, does she have the full confidence? >> she has the full confidence of the secretary. she is focused on our number one priority, which is making the implementation of the affordable care act work well.

people are working 24/7, to address the problems and isolate them and fix them when it comes to the web site and enrollment issues. the president wants these matters addressed because he wants to make sure americans across the country have the best possible consumer experience as they look at their options and plans available to them and see the fact that for so many of them there is affordable health insurance out there that was never there before. and it's important to note that even amidst this early stage of the enrollment process and even though there have been challenges with the web site, there are americans across the country who are through call centers and through the web site and through the states getting access to this information and seeing what choices are available to them and enrolling if they are ready to enroll.

and includes a woman in illinois who bought health insurance for her family with savings of $390 a month. in mississippi, a woman who was skipping medication for years was able to enroll herself and her husband for a plan that will cost $60 a month. utah, e ded last week in a father and family of five, small business owner who said, it took us half a dozen tries over several days, but he was able to strike silver, with family health coverage purchased on the affordable care act's online exchange. after plugging in his particulars, the business owner was able to compare 38 plans and apply for tax credits. he settled on the silver-level plan that retails for $850 a month. after tax credits, his family will pay $323.

quote, it's a great deal. i'm thrilled to have coverage, period. this is why we're doing this. these are the people we are focused on helping. the president is committed and has instructed his team to work 24/7 to resolve the issues that have arisen when it comes to implementation. but the purpose here is to provide benefits to those americans who have struggled for so long without access to affordable health insurance. >> without litigating the of the countdown clock i want to ask you about october 17 and some of the urgency with that date. when the sequester went into effect, there war dramatic predictions about long lines at airports and special education funding. without denying the impact of a default when such a thing would take place, does that undermine

the white house or this administration's credibility when it says october 17 is some form of a d-day when october 18, 19 and 20 may come and the sky will not fall. what is the risk of that? >> i would simply say there is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands default wouldt of be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers. this is a serious matter and we have been through this and i read quotes to you from numerous financial experts and numerous c.e.o.'s and president reagan among others who noted the full faith and credit of the united

states. on october 17, we cease to have borrowing authority. that means we can only pay our bills with cash on hand. and we are the largest economy in the world and we have a lot of obligations and our obligations exceed our income. and that is why we have to ensure that the treasury is able to borrow in order to pay our bills. >> for a matter of days. i don't know i'm not jack lew, there is a $6 billion on october 31 and $11 billion. we could go five, six, seven, eight days and nothing happens, isn't that a risk. >> we should wait for the last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay. and the idea that we are going to send a signal to the world that it's an acceptable

proposition -- this is what some republicans on capitol hill are conveying that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we before we have to delay a payment. already once you get to that deadline, you have entered territory we never entered before and that sends a signal that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the united states or the principle that we always pay our bills on time. and that's why this line has never been crossed. that's why administration after administration both democratic and republican has taken the position that we should never cross this line. it's why c.e.o.'s understand the impact this would have on what they do and on the american economy, have called on congress to quit even flirting with the prospect of default. so, again, for details on what

would happen if we were to cross that line, i would refer you to the treasury department. we are focused on working with congress to prevent that, as every member of congress who cares about the american economy should be focused on at this time. >> former defense secretary and c.i.a. director leon panetta said, when you are operating by crisis, there is enough blame to go around. does the president agree with one of his most closest allies that he should share in the blame for the situation we are in right now? >> there are no winners in a situation like this, not the american people, not the american economy and not members of either political party and any politician who plays this as a political game looking to win is making a mistake, a. b, the president's position has

been crystal clear, don't shut the government down. once they shut it down, reopen the government. he's asking for nothing in return. he is making no demands on congress. insisting on nothing from them in order to sign a bill that would reopen the government with no strings attached. the same when it comes to the responsibility of congress to raise the debt ceiling. only one party to this process who have been saying we would flirt with default if we don't get what we want. we are in the 15th day of a shutdown. first in 17 years, one faction of one party in one house of congress decided that it was so opposed to a law that had been passed by congress, signed into law by the president, upheld by the supreme court of the united states and litigated, to use your word and presidential campaign where the candidate that took their position lost,

shut down the government that didn't achieve their aim. the president's position has been that he has demanded nothing in return for congress simply keeping the government open and doing its job that the united states doesn't default. news op ed from the china agency, they said among other things, it's a good time for the world to consider building a deamericanized world. what is the white house's message to the chinese? >> i would simply say it is an important fact that the full faith and credit of the united states, the principle that has existed for centuries that this country pays its bills and pays them on time and that includes paying investors from around the world, the principle that this economy is a safe bet and the

safest bet that investment in ur country is as safe as any investment anywhere should not be compromised. and those who would compromise it are flirting with something -- are risking something that has immense value to the nation and to the american people. >> i wanted to follow on the question, just to clarify, is the president negotiating on whether or not to reopen the government and raise the debt limit? >> our position has been no ransom for reopening the government or congress' responsibility. >> is he not comboishting? the president has had -- it depends on what you mean by negotiate. he has been having conversations with lawmakers. what he has firmly made clear

the tea again is give party its ideological agenda wish list in exchange for congress opening the government or congress raising the debt ceiling so the united states doesn't default. that has been his position all along. it is clear in its simplicity, open the government, pay our bills, stop threatening default and stop doing harm to the economy and american people. that has been our position all along. and reiterating those points. it was to make clear that we see progress in the senate. we see in the senate process, the kind of bipartisan effort is the path to resolving these kinds of issues when it comes to these simple response bits that congress maintains, opening the

government, funding it, making sure that congress pays its bills. and we hope that all of congress takes the appropriate action to ensure that they do not continue to inflict harm on the american economy. >> since you have been talking boehner, a n to senior administration official did not proactively raise the medical device issue is astoundingly dishonest and it was a senior administration fficial who proposed it. >> i have answered the question three times. there have been questions about that because republicans have been putting it on the table. what we have always said we have never ever proposed or agreed to pay ransom in exchange for opening the government. and the proposal -- i had a

brief existence this morning before i guess the tea party pulled it down, contained within the demand to pray indicate tea party in exchange for opening the government. we are not paying ransom for that. it is astoundingly disingenuous to suggest that our position has ever been we are going to pay ransom in exchange for republicans to open the government. >> one other topic on the shutdown. we were talking about iran, does the president have any reaction to the talks that have been going on? >> i'm not sure there is an offer. there was a meeting in geneva the first day of it and the

a nian delegation made presentation and they discussed the presentation. we aren't going to negotiate this in public or go into the details of what was in their proposal. we certainly want to make clear that no one, despite the positive signs we have seen, no one should expect a break-through. these are complicated issues. and as the president has said, the mistrust here is very deep. but we hope for progress in geneva. and although we appreciate the recent change in tone from the iranian government on this issue, we will be looking for specific steps that address core issues, such as the pace and scope of its enrichment program, the transparency of its overall nuclear program and stockpiles of enrichment. it is seeking an agreement that ultimately resolves all the international community's concerns and while we negotiate, we will continue to keep up the

economic pressure on iran, which has brought about the occasion for at least the prospect of making progress. >> how do you view the presentation? do you find it encouraging? was it a step in the right direction? >> i would simply say that after day one, we are hopeful we will make progress in geneva, but beyond that, i wouldn't characterize the presentation or the status of conversations. >> polling on the shutdown and default stuff has been just clearly bad for congressional republicans. not been great for everyone else et they are but worse for them. how do you think that should affect the way they proceed and how do you think that should affect how the white house proceeds and how much you should concede with the pressure on

making concessions? >> as the president said last week, there are no winners here, and you can't -- it's not the right thing to do to look at this as ar partisan, zero-sum game. the right thing to do is to make no partisan demands as part of congress doing its basic job. funding the government, making sure the united states pays its bills on time. the president is more than eager to sit down and work with lawmakers of both parties to discuss a broader budget agreement where we can find compromise in making necessary investments in key areas like education and innovation and balanced butmaking tough choices when it comes to reducing our deficit and managing our long-term debt.

that has been evident in the proposals he put forward and he wants to get back to that. but the context for that is budget negotiations where there are no guns on the table where the threat of shutdown or the threat of continued shutdown is removed. the threat of default is removed and lawmakers with good intentions from both parties as well as the white house can try and find a broader agreement on our budget priorities. that would be good for the country and probably would be good for everyone in washington of both parties. . reflects a snapshot in time do you feel this has been well done and does reflect the public sentiment. you guys look at polling. what is the polling telling you how the public feels and how both sides should proceed? >> margaret, i would just say that americans are justifiably

frustrated by dysfunction in shington, by a decision from any corridor, a decision made by house republicans to shut the government down over a partisan dispute or to threaten default for partisan reasons. views in, how the public it is reflected in what's been played out here, the president has taken the position where he has asked for nothing in return for congress doing its job. he is eager to sit down and have a tough negotiations and conversations with republicans and democrats about our budget priorities, but only after these basic responsibilities are fulfilled, that the government reopen and the threat of default be removed.

>> do you think that the senate and house republicans are paying attention to the polling? >> again, i just don't think that's the way we want to look at this here. look, here's the thing, whatever analysis you make of the data that you cite and i think there is a consensus that reflects what you said, we wish it weren't so, we wish instead congress he simply kept the government open. we wish instead that the house had allowed for a process by which congress, without drama and delay, ensure that the united states would pay its bills into the future, just like we wish for the country for deficit reduction, for our economy, the house would follow the senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform

with a big bipartisan vote. that might be good for the republican party and it would say so, republicans would say so. we hope they do it. the president believes it's very important in our country to have two strong parties and to have parties with sincere differences, but lawmakers who compromises o make without sacrificing their principles in order to do the essential business of the american people. that's the approach he has always taken and one of the things that has been difficult over these last several years, we have seen a highly partisan wing of one party drive the train, if you will, when it comes to how we move forward on these issues and it makes it very difficult. > from the podium, the polling pollsters, the attacks the president has been taking on not

negotiating. >> i think it's important if you shorthand it and say he doesn't want to negotiate, that ignores an entire calendar year where he has been asking republicans to sit down with him and negotiate. he put forward a budget. he had numerous meetings and meals and conversations with republicans in the senate and house about these very issues. but he does not believe that our partisan differences should be the excuse for shutting down the economy, in the worst-case scenario or shutting down the government. that's just using the american people and american economy as pawns in this partisan dispute. and that's not the right way to do things. we ought to make sure these essential functions are funded and make sure the united states pays its bills and then we should negotiate.

>> first of all, i don't know if you are aware of this, when i had a heart attack a few years eeg, i wasn't able to get insurance. listening to all of the pressure, made me think, is there a chance the president would be willing to delay obamacare for a year if the republicans would agree to delay heart attacks for a year? >> you know the president's position is that we need to implement the affordable care act and when it comes to the millions of americans across the country who have had a very hard time getting access to affordable health insurance, we need to focus on those folks and continue the business of implementing the affordable care act so that on january 1, those americans will be able to purchase insurance, quality insurance at affordable rates for the first time. that answer your question? question, i was

talking to my mom this morning and she asked me to ask you to please open the government back up again and i know you just can't do that. but she is worried about her social security check. i said don't worry mom, we'll get it taken care of. but steve, last night said ctober 23 is one of these drop -dead dates when stuff starts to pile up. should she be worried? >> what i would say about that, which goes to the issue of the debt ceiling is that the united states government, through congress, has made a lot of commitments. and has a lot of obligations. and those include the commitments and obligations that the congress has made and we have made to america's seniors.

ever contemplate the possibility that the timely provision of benefits to those seniors would be jeopardized by a decision by one faction of one party of one house of one branch of government to wage an ideological battle here in washington. that's why -- that crystalizes the fact that there are real people who depend on some basic things. and everybody in washington, democrats and republicans and independents should sort of agree to the principle that we ought to, at the very least, ensure that those people are taken care of and that the essential functioning of government is allowed to proceed and that the basic premise that the united states always pays its bills on time is not jeopardized. that's the position the president has taken.

>> last question, do you remember the last debt ceiling al, there was a plan floated called the mcconnell plan where congress would authorize a debt ceiling increase for a year, year and a half and hold a vote every so often and require 2/3 majority. something like the mcconnell plan being discussed now and if not? why not? >> i would basically direct you to congress for the various they for discusses for how fulfill. congress has the authority whether it's to devise a scheme or a plan along the lines that you talked about or just take the vote and raise the debt ceiling. that's not an authority the resident has but congress has.

>> jay, basically, you are saying thursday and from you said at the podium, you aren't going to pay all of your bills. what should the american public be bracing for? you are basically calmly calling fire? >> on thursday, the united states runs out of its borrowing authority and that means the treasury only has cash on hand to meet the obligations that the united states government has. >> you aren't going to be able to pay all of your bills? >> the treasury is the place to go to specific time tables as to when bills come due than and how that works. the reason we need to raise the debt ceiling is to ensure that the treasury can borrow to meet our obligations.

inevitably, if your obligations exceed what you take in, you are in a situation where default is a possibility. but the treasury is the right place to address those questions. and april, i don't have the list of many outside experts who aren't crying fire. they are crying stop. stop doing, stop threatening the american and global economy with the prospect of default and do the responsible thing and pass a bill that extends the debt ceiling so this isn't something that could happen or be contemplated. that is not us, certainly not us alone. many folks from the business world and both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that we don't want to cross that line because the consequences would be very negative. >> i'm not putting any blame anywhere, what should the american public be bracing for because many persons have had

their paychecks stopped and government subsidies to programs. thursday, friday, whatever, when you are not able to pay all of your bills, what should the american public be bracing for? >> i understand, a, we hope we don't get to the point where that's a reality. within congress' power to ensure that does not happen. broadly speaking, i said there is reason to be concerned given the disposition we have seen in congress in particular among house republicans, although some senate republicans as well, to flirt with default, flirt with crossing that threshold beyond which we don't have borrowing authority. that's very dangerous. we believe there is a majority in both houses to ensure that if given the chance that this never

comes about. i have to go to another medal of honor -- >> what is the construct as to why we're here? we know it's partisan agendas and politics and sunday we saw a situation at the white house where race was involved and many are saying it has to do with race because the president is a black man. is race a part of this stalemate conversation? >> april, i don't believe that that's the issue here. i believe this is a decision by -- republicans shut the government down, not because every republican wanted it, but because republican leaders in the house were listening to a faction within their party, a majority of the house should be allowed to vote on a clean c.r. as we talked about.

and when it comes to the essential responsibility to ensure that the united states pays its bills that congress be able to take that action so that this threat is removed. and everybody, republicans and democrats can get about the business of discussing and negotiating over our budget priorities. john, last one. >> the president support the re-insurance provision -- >> not going to negotiate items over proposed bills that haven't been written or submitted. >> can i get your reaction to mcconnell to suspend negotiations until the house does or does not act today? >> we see progress in the senate and seen a bipartisan approach in the senate that we would hope that the house would emulate. >> can you give us a time frame of when you expect the fed ex

changes will be fully functional and what entities are working on it and who pays for this part of the contract or is this an additional cost? >> those are all questions for h.h.s. and c.h.s. i can tell you at the president's direction, people are working 24/7 to resolve the problems that have arisen. nd taking steps to make sure that those many, many millions of americans who are interested in the options available to them to purchase affordable health insurance in many cases for the first time, have the best consumer experience possible and there are a lot of people hard at work on this but the work being done and the process in place, i would refer you to h.h.s. thanks everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] -- spokesouse suppose

man. we are back with you live to take your comments and calls on the 15th day of government shutdown and the deadline of the debt ceiling looming on october 17th. about an hour ago the house rules committee postponed indefinitely to consider the latest republican plan to reopen the government and and to extend the debt ceiling that was postponed by the committee chair, pete sessions of texas. not sure when they will meet again, but we can tell you there is a meeting going on in speaker john boehner's office. house republican leaders are meeting there. live look. if there are comments afterwards, we will bring you you those comments. the house republican leadership released an updated plan on resolving the debt ceiling crisis and reopening the government. a look at the plans as they

stand 6:45. the republican plan a bit of a change from earlier today. they would fund the government through december 15. they had had that date as january 15. they would extend the debt ceiling through february 7. it would prevent health care employer subsidies for members of congress and their staff and limit the treasury department to manage the debt, something the white house has opposed. the senate plan would reopen the government through january 15. it would extend the debt ceiling through february 7. there would be health care subsidies requiring income verification and set up further budget negotiations. we are waiting to hear possible action on the rules committee, whether they are going to meet tonight or not and going to open p our phone lines for you to weighing in.

here are our phone line numbers. just a couple of tweets from reporters on the scene covering a meeting at john boehner's offices from nbc saying leadership has gone back into boehner's office and pete session is saying no decision yet on whether the rules committee will meet. c nmp n tweets that representative jenkins said asked about the votes tonight said it's not looking good and said steve king of iowa says he is leaning no. e budget reporter for "c. q. roll call" on capitol hill. what was the reason why the rules committee postponed the

meeting tonight? >> apparently they don't have the votes to pass the bill that rule for going to do a today. there was sort of the house leaders -- house g.o.p.'s plan this morning and then that was changed to this latest plan and latest plan apparently doesn't have the votes either. they postponed the meeting and it's not clear what they are going to do at this point. >> earlier today when the house republican conference meeting broke up, almost a representative, all of them talked about making sure that the plan they offered offered fairness to the american people. what were they getting at in those comments? and where do you think they stand at this moment in trying to get something that will pass the house? >> what they were talking about was the provision, which is in the latest bill as well, which

says if you are a member of congress or congressional staff or the president and vice president or cabinet members that already these people will be going on the health exchanges . but this provision says that they will not get any kind of federal subsidies once they are on that exchange. currently federal employees and congressional staff and members of congress get a subsidy that covers a certain portion of their health care costs and this provision would eliminate the subsidy. what g.o.p. leaders are saying is that it's only fair for members and staff to have to be on the exchanges if other americans are going to be on the exchanges. that's what they were referring to. >> has the white house referred o the have itner -- vitter

amendment and veto any sort of bill that had that in there? >> i'm not sure if the white house has weighed in on that or not. i'm not sure if they have. we have had a lot of bills that the white house has threatened to veto and i'm not sure if any of those would be relevant. >> what has been the role of this and showed it to c-span viewers, the political action committee of the heritage foundation, the key vote urging members to vote no on that house spending and debt deal? how much influence has that had among the conference? >> a lot of influence and as a matter of fact, you know the notes came out that the rules committee hearing was being delayed after that message came out. the heritage action, freedom

works, club for growth, these groups have been hammering on the theme of you have to defund r delay the health care law no matter what. and that's continued to be their message that they are against voting for any funding bill or raising the debt limit unless it stops the health care law. >> what are the options left to speaker boehner as of this evening? >> he's probably still trying to see if he can get the republican votes to pass the bill. democrats have said they are not going to vote for the latest bill that was described. so he is trying to see if he can get the republican votes. if he can't, you know, then his only choice would be to put a bill before the house that will not get enough republican support to pass, but will get

enough democratic support to pass. that would be the final thing problemly. >> thanks for the update. thanks for being with us this evening. we are going to continue and take your phone calls and reaction. tag is on ther hash bottom of the screen. let's get your calls. kentucky, democrats' line. >> i think it's a shame that the american veteran has been treated this way and the tirees and the people in social security. there are going to be people not going to be able to pay their rent because they are on a fixed income and they depend on the government checks that they have earned. congress needs to get up and do

something about this. this is ridiculous. thank you. >> looks like we have some embers coming to the microphone. greg walden. let's go to pennsylvania, donna on our independent line. >> the reason i'm calling, i'm concerned what is happening here. i'm someone who is on disability. but i have a concern also with the government and with social security, because many, many years, i had done background checks on employees that get hired for a job and you would people ve five or eight active on that social, which means that they are paying taxes, which is probably people who are here illegally but they are paid. and if i called social security to say why is this happening, the comment is we can't talk to

you? >> let's listen in to pete sessions. >> be prepared. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. no votes tonight. o rules tonight. >> that was pete sessions, the rules committee chair walking by reporters and being followed by reporters down the hall. there is a meeting going on in speaker john boehner's office. he did say something about the meeting and not totally clear. no votes tonight. no votes tonight in the house. let's go back to donna in

pennsylvania. >> that's pretty sad to hear this is going on. we have a bunch of children in sandboxes who don't want to play. what i was explaining to you, if all this money was going into social security that other people earned, how can this money not be there in the past? to me, that needs to be looked into in this government, what is happening? these people are paying taxes and can't collect it and that means that money went to the government. >> part of that democratic plan, the senate plan that's being eveloped at least as of midday would set up a longer term budget deal. that plan in the senate would extend government funding through january 15. the house, at least earlier today, the house plan was through december 15. chris on our independent line.

>> i think it's about time we just lock down the senate and the congress and their chambers and get out the cots and the pillows and eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches until they get it hammered out. the so-called obamacare is nothing but unaffordable care. asking the american people to stand up and be heard. it's our fault that this has happened. we have been too complacent over the years. >> rochester, new hampshire is next. democrat caller. john. >> thank you for being able to get through. i tried many times before.

i think the senate and house -- this is a competition of wills and they are making their own rules. they are not following the set of rules while supposedly they are, but the rules should be changed. congratulations to each person in congress is trying to , but there has to be some line drawn. this is not necessary. they're trying to do the best for the people economically.

and socially in many ways. to the -- they're costing us drag it out as long as this and they should have a rule in place which it doesn't come to this. if it comes down to something in the house and the senate and it comes to this point of a continuing resolution or increasing the debt limit, it's cost us at that point. there has to be a consideration ok.

by campaigning, going around and scaring elderly people and people who are lesser educated, to get into office and now they've let the tea party take over, is absolutely ridiculous. i want the republicans to know they've lost a lifetime

republican voter in me. i will never vote republican again. even though i have voted for -- i didn't vote for obama in either election, i think what they're doing right now is racially connected and i think it's terrible the way they are acting by not working bipartisanly and i think a lot of leaders deserve to be elected out of office in the next election. >> next up is albany, georgia. glen, hello, independent line. glen, make sure that you mute your television. we'll come back to you in a second. william in s in chandler, arizona, on the democrats line. >> yes. tell me one thing that the republicans have done for the greater health of america. it was not social security, it was not medicare and it sure as or the t be obamacare affordable care act. and just look at it and i go,

pull fans ou want to from canada but you don't care what happens to canada. you want to do this, you want to do that. i lived in wyoming as a kid and our water when we turn it on, oil came out. with the water. so we had to go to the platte river and get our drinking water. but that was acceptable. when they ruined -- when their trigger plans ruined a plot of land, they simply gave you a check for one year's worth of crop, when they knew -- you couldn't grow a crop on there for the next five years. and i'm just tired of the republicans. i'm sick of them. and i hope people get the message. >> let's get a couple more calls here to kensos had a, wisconsin. steve -- kenosha, wisconsin. steve is on the republican line. >> hi. i appreciate the platform. i want to make a quick comment

and a question beyond that. my comment is, i guess i'm fortunate to have been brought up knowing, to really live within my means and accept the consequences for not. and furthermore, to know the difference between a want and a need and truly believe that in political office, there's a -- just a terrible thing that happens when folks get into that office in that they forget the want and need and their spending other people's money regardless. and my quick follow-up question is, i do know that the president and those spokespeople that talk on his behalf have said that he ants to negotiate a longer compromise and deal that addresses the real drivers of our debt and this would preclude

having all of these last-minute raising the debt ceiling. number one, you need to live within your means, meaning what we take in. and furthermore, the question comes as, i want to know why more folks have not broken down paul ryan's plan to address those real drivers of our debt that create these credit limit crises and these budget overruns. thank you so much. >> sure, steve. the president on the specific house proposal, he did tell democratic leaders earlier today that he would veto the debt legislation that's being proposed by house republicans because it includes that provision, the vitter amendment, that would cut health subsidies for congressional and senior executive branch officials and congressional staff as well, according to "politico." let's get one more here from glen. glen's on the line from albany, georgia. ndependent line.

glen, i'm going to let you go. just make sure you mute your television when you call in. mesquite, texas. independent line. robin. >> thank you for taking my call. i'd like to wish everyone grace and liberty from texas. my question is, and, you know, i was going to try to preas if it as why do you think it is, so i'll keep it like that. why do you think it is that the american public is so ignorant when it comes to the constitution, specifically the fifth right that's guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution, which is -- which allows us as we the people to petition the government for redress of grievances and specifically to -- when we file a petition,, you know, the american public is just really ignorant of this, filing a petition with 20% of the voters in any district or region, to not only recall the people that

we've elected and have recall vote, but also to get things by by using our voice and using the grieveance process, why do you think that is? >> we'll leave it there for others to consider there. thanks for your call. migged load -- mid loathian, virginia, here's ann, wrapping up on the democrats line. go ahead. >> i would like to state that i feel that the government should not be held hostage by a minority of senators, namely the republican senators. senator cruz especially. and his could he horts. and -- cohorts and why should the government be held hostage by the heritage foundation, an ex-senator. we are a government by and for the people. we are not a government by the

heritage foundation or senators who are representatives whom we put in there to do our will. we should be able to recall them and as the gentleman before who was an independent stated, we should -- that's what we should do. is recall these senators. and we should start it immediately. but people, as the gentleman stated, are stupid because they don't have any view of how the government runs. >> more of your calls coming up this evening. more tomorrow morning on "washington journal." a quick tweet here. >> the rules committee postponed for tonight, no counsel meeting tonight and no votes. our caller mentioned the heritage foundation. we covered an event today at the heritage foundation that they held to look at the impact of the government shutdown on the national parks and one of those ,peaking was republican of utah

rob bishop. >> thank you for coming to discuss the closing of the american monument. let's just take a step back and contemplate why we have memorials and national monuments at all. >> president jefferson's survare of the public buildings. these places represented the tranquility, the prosperity and the happiness of american government. offering sagely advice very early on, george washington cautioned us from politicizing these places that represented

ideas higher than daily politics. he wrote about the erection of the memorial to the american revolution, in 1975 -- in 1795, and i quote, the event to which it is dedicated, the emblems to which it is composed and the effect which it is meant to produce have all an iment mat relation to the rights and happeniness of the people. let it be commenced then not through the origin of government as a political act, but in a mode which will best testify the sentiments which spontaneously glow in the breasts of republican citizens. well, my, how far we've come, if you observe what's gone on this month. there have been 17 partial government shutdowns since 1977. and if history's any guide, there will be more in the knewture. so that's nothing new. what is new are the arbitrary

and unnecessary actions of the national park service. this month, which closed many memorials, national parks and other public places, which remained open in previous overnment shutdowns. far from leaving these monuments open, they've taken actions to barricade them, enforce the barricades and make life as difficult for american citizens as possible. far from the tranquility and prosperity these places are supposed to represent. one park service employee was quoted as saying, we've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. so we are here today to discuss the purposes of america's monuments, the actions of the national park service during this partial government shutdown, and how those actions comport with the law. we're very honored today to have congressman rob bishop who

serves utah's first congressional district and he will offer some keynote remarks and then we will turn to our distinguished panel to speak about not only the history and purposes of america's monuments, but the legal ramifications of some of the park service actions. representative bishop serves on the house armed services committee and the house rules committee and he has continued to serve as chairman of the public lands and environmental regulations subcommittee of the natural resources committee. please join me in welcoming representative rob bishop. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate your kind introduction and the charity applause. i appreciate that all. [laughter] i'm happy to be here, even though it's not wise to talk when you're actually upset and mad. but then i've been in that situation for the last three

weeks. the other day i was trying to meet with a couple of air force generals and as usual i was late. i found out that if you have to go to the raburn building, the elevators are always slow and always crowded so the escalators are far faster if you want to get from the basement up to the first floor. except this morning when i tried to go there running late, i realized somebody had messed up awl and all the escalates were all going down. every one of them. which i thought was a perfect metaphor not only for our country and for congress and for this administration. i'm here to talk about what not only the park service is doing but the forest service and fish and wildlife have emulated them as the policies clearly are those that are based on iness and ness and pet politicizing situations that took place. i think the only question is, how high up does the instructions to take this approach actually go? i feel this is going to be another i.r.s. investigation where every time you turn around and have another investigation, you find out there's another level above it that actually

made this issue. you have seen what has happened in the world war ii memorial. everyone's upsets about it. it's also happening on public lands everywhere throughout this country. so you have read about people that are not allowed to visit graves in tennessee. or the school bus route in tennessee that's been closed down. or the inn in tennessee that they were actually serving lunch as the park service employee rangers came in with their lights flashing on their cars and their guns drawn. or the senior citizens and foreigners that were held basically under armed guard in yellowstone, then forced to take a 2 1/2-hour bus drive where they weren't allowed to stop for any kind of bathroom break and when they stopped to take pictures of buffalo, were threatened again saying that photographing was recreating and they couldn't recreate in yellowstone under the closedown. a jogger in valley forge was fined $100 for jogging. a d.c. playground,y in an area that has never seen a park service employee there, they actually chained and padlocked the play ground so kids couldn't go on the swings or slides.

one park in utah, which i always thought was a city park, the dunne family for 30 years had a picnic there. unfortunately this park happened to be on forest service grounds so when they went for their 30 anniversary picnic, they were shoved off the grounds before they could ever put their food down to actually eat in the park. all these things clearly show that the purpose of public lands is being -- which is supposedly for memorializing what has happened in history and also providing recreational opportunities, is simply being placed in the secondary position, showing there is power and there is control by certain groups. they claim there are first amendment exceptions. i guess if you're going to protest the world bank or immigration issues from the same people that allowed the occupy movement to stay for several months on federal land without paying any fees for it, but not for cancer research programs or for wedings or for the germen american friendship day which was canceled in the germen american friendship garden and

heavens knows what you think would happen if somebody wanted to exercise a second amendment right on public lands. now, in all fairness for those of who you find this appalling, from somebody who lives in the inner mountain west, my question simply has to be, so what? we are living with this every day. this activity is nothing new for us. we have been doing this for months. when you have a person out in an area that decides to stop a legal outfitter from going onto grounds because she doesn't think there should be commercial activity in her wilderness area, or in washington where they have expanded an area of a park to include something that's basically a city park and then banned a church, an annual church picnic, and a fundraiser benefit for veterans because the noise would bother the historic and cultural aspects of the rest of the park, or in nevada, where somebody, a victim of a murder's body was given up by the park service in trying to find it, the family tried to find somebody who would go search privately, 15 months later they

were able to raise the money to get the special use permit as well as the insurance the park service insisted and once that private firm was allowed to go into the park, found the body within two hours. another air force staff sergeant who drowned at lake immediate, park service gain of up on it. the family had to wait 10 months, get an attorney, go to court to get the permission to have somebody else go in there and find the body which they did in the space of a couple of days. in one park, on our border, in which the park service wanted to move their electronic devices from point a to point b and the electronic devices was simpley the back of a truck. it took six months for the land manager to give permission to back up the truck and move from oint a to point b. helipads the border patrol wanted to have in a forest area, forest service agreed to three pads. fish and wildlife disagreed. a year and a half later those pads were not there to help enforce the border. you have -- in the granditien tos in washington where we found that paddling does not actually

involve or denigrate any of the fishing opportunities, you still have an area designated by congress as wild and scenic recreation rivers. they have banned any kind of recreation that involves a motor, a paddle or an ore. which, what's left? fish watching? that's the only thing they possibly have. when the park service makes a public comment against the keystone pipeline saying that it could involve the view shed of the park or the implementations of the park's mission, even though the closest park is 30 miles away from the pipeline, when you have the fish and wildlife finding that there is an endangered species that happens only to be on oil schaal. own there. and allows the county to have a mitigation plan if they have it by march which unfortunately this plant only blooms in june and july and you can't tell what plant is until it actually

blooms, but they have to have in march their mitigation plan for what they don't know exists. establishing a sage grass level at a certain amount tude, even though there are no birds at that altitude but they said at that altitude they're supposed to have birds therefore that becomes a safe habitat. when the world war ii monument is opened again, all of you who live in the east can be happy, but i want you to know that these kind of activities have been going on in the west and they will continue to go on in the west. by department of interior, which is still vindictive, petty, politicized and wants to show control rather than power. i'm pleased that mr. cole is going to be here and talking about the eisenhower memorial later on. that is a memorial that has broken probably every rule, every concept, every traditional activity we have done to try and get it established. it is still overbudget and needs to be changed significantly and it shows once again the dysfunction that we have in certain areas in certain areas of our government. now, in the -- when the berlin wall came down, all of a sudden veryone realized the idea of

centralized overly brach government fails. every -- bureaucratic government fails. everywhere it fails, except in washington, where the idea of centralized bureaucratic government still seems to be the goal. the opposite that have is what our nation was supposedly founded on. in prepsition, i apologize. on which our nation was supposedly founded which is antifederalist. i know when people talk about federalism, their eyes glaze over, they think of the essay they didn't write in high school and nothing else about it. federalism still allows people to have choices and options in their lives. and to choose them. we have examples that have if we actually try to event rate that. in wisconsin, where the state is actually running and managing certain lands on federal property, even though the federal government told the governer to shut them down, the wisconsin governor said no, they are still operating. in arizona and utah and south dakota and colorado, the governors in the states stepped up and funded the opening of the national parks over there so

they could keep going. we have a situation in the state of utah called sand flats, an area that was owned by the park service which -- i'm sorry, b.l.m., which they admitted they didn't have the staff or the man power or the money or desire to actually maintain and regulate. when a near riot broke out, they decided to make a deal with the county so that the county actually now organizes, controls, pays for and receives royalties from the managing of that recreation area and it is done brilliantly. we have another one in the southern part of the state of utah called coral pink sand dunes where actually the federal government has finally given over the land as well as control of management of the land to the state of utah and that was recently listed as one of the hidden treasures. you see, we can still make this work if we indeed come up with the idea of federalism that allows different options and different choices in different areas and allows the state to take leadership. we can prove that state forests in idaho produce more revenue and are healthier than the federal forests next door.

simply because that process works. you all know yellowstone is the first national park that was established. the second national park was mackinac island in michigan which was given back to michigan because they could better manage it. and as you've seen in the shutdown, they can better manage it. it's not the fact that we have to have nearly -- the federal government has to control everything. when i was in germany last time, i met somebody working in the german forest service and she was a pre-teen when the wall came down. and her first trip into west berlin from her home, she was just amazed that she went into a store of all the stuff that was there to purchase. she went in to one grocery store and realized that there were five different kinds of sugar she could buy. five different brands. because in east germany, you either had sugar or you didn't have sugar and it was usually the latter. here she had five different choices. and her first thought was, wow, there are five choices.

her second thought was, why do i need five choices? the ideal socialized world, if they provide an adequate quantity of cheap sugar, maybe one source is actually enough. but we all know that doesn't work in real life. well, what it simply means is you need that kind of competition to be able to provide you with what you need. and the same thing happens with public lands. you need different choices and different options. there needs to be five -- i recently read a book about members of my religion who tried to live in communist east germany and as i was reading it i realized one of the concepts is that the public land policy in communist east germany is the exact same public land policy we have in the united states today. either we're wrong or they were right. and i really don't think it is the latter situation. it's one of those things that we have to realize, there has to be a change and to actually allow us to partner with states and

local governments to open up these where ares -- areas, to manage these lands would be the best thing we could do to actually do this in a functioning, rational particular way. i am pleased that the current secretary of interior is not -- is not samplee -- is not a simple, is not a traditional administrative appointee who has risen through the ranks. she comes from the business world of outdoor recreation and realize fs you're going to get something for the public land it has to be there for people to use and to enjoy. i certainly hope that mindset becomes more within the federal government because that is the solution to what we need. the purpose of the land is for people to enjoy. and if we're not doing that we are simply failing. and what i am trying to tell you is actually having everything coordinated through one federal agency does not help that situation. if we really were serious about opening up our lands for public enjoyment, we would have a partnership between state and

federal government or just turn over more and more of these areas to state and local governments where people who know what they're doing can actually be in charge. and you wouldn't have the situation we are finding ourselves in today. if nothing else, the government shutdown has shown why states are important. why federalism is simply important. i'm sorry but the bottom line is simply this. federalism is the solution to our problems and it is the salvation of this country and in this area, more than anything else, we need to make sure that we use it and use it properly. thank you. thank you for being here. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. and he's graciously aagreed to take a few questions before we turn it over to our panelists. is there a question or two from the audience? e'll send around a mifpblgte >> milton. i think your idea of change at the top, maybe it will help, is a good one, but what do you do

when you have a whole department, thousands of employees, who are all basically statist or they wouldn't work for the state, how can you turn the elephant around? >> that's the effort that we are going through to try and make sure that we get more authority to states, trying to make deals with states. you can already have the ability of the federal government to keep controlling the land but they give the ownership and management back to state and local governments. we can push those entities. and then we can also try and push -- to simply realize that standardization and a communal approach to everything, everything being owned by the department of interior, doesn't work. we need to go and do the other way and start turning things around so more and more authority goes to local governments to do these jobs. the house has started to do this. things like our efforts with the -- st bill, which is called is an effort to try and turn over the authority of making sure that what happens on the land is controlled from the local level. we have those efforts, they have to be done.

but they have to come from congress. >> congressman, you have a good bill out on the eisenhower memorial. what's the future of that bill? >> i don't know. nor does anyone know the future of the eisenhower memorial. with the c.r.'s failing, the ability, the authorization for the site selection as well as the continuation has expired. it may come back in a c.r. with some limitations. the house has cut the funding for the continuation of that commission. the commission, though, has not expired. nor have any of their employees been furloughed in this situation. and they're still sitting on $20 million that has previously been appropriated that could be spending even though they don't have any ongoing revenue coming into them through the appropriations process. what i think the house has clearly said in the committee work that we have done so far is we have to rethink this. we should have a memorial to eisenhower but it should be do not right way. i think mr. cole will be talking

about that. there are ways of doing it the right way that can be a whole lot cheaper than what we're attempting to do. nd do it in way like other memorials that we have done in the past. this one has broken all the rules. tried to take short cuts and it has proven to be an unacceptable solution at this point. >> please join me in thanking representative bishop. thank you. [applause] and i would just like to express my appreciation for congressman bishop's leadership on the eisenhower memorial which was an undemocratic and untransparent selection process and until he took it on, it perhapses would have gone to completion, without being addressed. so thank you. we're now going to move to panel discussion here and we're very happy to have bruce cole who is a senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center. he's also the former chairman of the national endowment for the humanities and is the author of

14 books and numerous articles. in 2008 president george w. bush awarded mr. cole the presidential citizens medal for his work to strengthen our national memory and ensure that our country's history is passed on to future generations. just this summer, mr. cole was appointed by president obama to be a member of the dwight d. eisenhower memorial commission and we are very appreciative that he is now in that post. we're also very pleased to have andrew claust who are is a legal fellow here at the sentser for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation. and he's a graduate of new york university school of law here at heritage. he focuses on civil rights, the role of the federal courts and other constitutional issues. we're just going to remain seat and have a conversation here. each panelist will speak for about 10 minutes and then hopefully we'll have a conversation with you, the audience. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much.

thank you, representative bishop, for being here and thank you for your leadership on this 30r7b issue. -- on this important issue. i think one of the things that the shutdown has shown is the importance of memorial and how americans care about them. they are sacred to us. and i just will start off with this image of dwight eisenhower in normandy in 1963. and this is normandy today. these cemeteries that are shut down, the flag does not fly above them. it is really a desecration of our memory and of those brave souls who perished in normandy. we have a dratigs -- we have a tradition of presidential memorials. they're not doctor there are -- there are not meap of them. most presidents don't stick around washington. they go home and they die and they have usually simple memorials. but we do have a tradition starting with the great obelisk

of the washington memorial and then the lincoln memorial and then the jefferson memorial and these memorials, which are jefferson and lincoln are 20th century, are superb memorials because what they do is they importance show the of those presidents who they memorialize. o if you look at the jefferson memorial, which harkins back to the classical pass, tell bodies all the early federal architecture, traditions of greek democracy and rome, it anchors us to the past. but if you walk those steps, just like if you walk up the steps of the lincoln memorial, you are elevated. you get the sense of the graphicity and the importance of that person. who is being memorialized. there are a couple of others. the james buchanan memorial. no one knows about that. well hidden. and then there's the franklin

memorial, actually franklin roosevelt wanted this. he was talking to his cabinet and said, if you want to memorialize me, make a plain monument the size of my desk in the oval office and they did it. but then you have memorial creep and this is the one room of the new franklin delano roosevelt memorial which shows various episodes from his four terms. here are a group of people, they look like they're waiting for a men's room. [laughter] kennedy you have the center which is itself a memorial, a kind of living memorial. and now i want to talk about the ike memorial. i'm all in favor of the ike memorial. ike was a great american. he embodies a great american story. he comes from humble origins, here's his house in abilene. of course he was supreme commander of the allied forces

on d-day, in a campaign that defeated germany. he was a great president, i believe, served two terms, had a good record on civil rights, interstate highway, was very smart and savvy. in he was humble and here his tomb, in abilene, there are a couple of inscriptions here. there's one about humility. humility must always be the portion of any man who receives a claim during the blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends. and he was a humble, modest person, plain-spoken. and i think he would be horrified by how he's about to be memorialized and as you can see on october 25, 1999, the public law 106 was passed and it said that an appropriate permanent memorial to dwight d. eisenhower should be created. so far the eisenhower memorial

has been given $62 million in taxpayer money, they have about $20 million left. as well as $2 million a year since 1999 for staff and salaries. now, the architect of the -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fdic north dakota >> we'll take you back live now to the u.s. house a they wrap up their legislative day. expected to be a short session. live coverage here on c-span. appointment to the energy and commerce committee i hereby resign my position on the education and work forest committee. signed, sincerely, john yarmuth, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the journal

stands approved. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. rush of illinois for october 14 and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

the leaders have decided to work toward a solution that would reopen the government and prevent default. >> well, in about 45 minutes or so, we're going to reopen our phone lines to get your thoughts and comments on the day.

the 15th day of the government shutdown. and efforts on both sides of congress to make some sort of measure pass, make some sort of measure stick that would reopen the government and deal with the impending debt ceiling. which is on thursday, october 17. so we'll do that about 8:15 eastern. in the meantime, we're going to take you back to the discussion from earlier today at the heritage foundation, looking at the impact of the government shutdown on national parks. >> appropriate form. right now the site is four acres, these giant eight-story columns. it doesn't reflect the dignity, the humility and the accomplishments of dwight david eisenhower. here is a very simple memorial. i'm not suggesting that something like this be built on the grounds of the eisenhower library in abilene. but certainly we can do something that's better. we can build something that's

more appropriate. and that will be a credit not only to the commissioners but to the rising generations of americans who will learn something about the intrinsic good and decency of dwight eisenhower. >> if it's built i guess we'll have to worry about anyone trying to break in to that memorial during the shutdown. it will keep people out when it's open. andrew, we're going to let you ake over from here and explicitly talk about how the park service actions on a public land and at memorials perhaps violate a few laws and constitutional rights. >> sure. thank you very much. a lot of great information here from both the congressmen and mr. cole and i hope that folks become more interested in our national monuments. i just spent the weekend in

philadelphia. i used to work there at a first amendment group, civil rights group, overlooking independence hall. ied around and i got to see -- i walked around and i got to see folks with their families visiting independence hall and trying to see the liberty bell and things like that. and i didn't say anything but i wanted to hear what folks were saying and the refrain was pretty unanimous. even without any -- i didn't prompt or anything, i was just listening. folks were constantly harping on how unnecessary it was to shut down these monuments and how it seemed disproportion to what was going on in washington. and so i just want to talk a few minutes and raise some of the legal issues and point out how, you know, folks that are concerned about these issues and have instincts as to what's going on, usually your instincts are pretty right. one of the things that a lot of folks are saying is, isn't it odd that the park service seems to be spending more money trying

to shut down these parks than they are -- than they would be spending just letting the parks lie, you know, quote-unquote, falow. that's a legal argument that you're making when you say that. and -- because you have instincts, that in the absence of a congressional appropriation , the president can't spend money. and there's a law there. it's called the antideficiency act. it says that unless congress passes a money bill, it's actually a felony for a federal officer to spend -- to try to do stuff, that's the technical term, to try to do stuff or spend money. so, there's a prohibition on that sort of a thing. and so the argument that folks are making when they say it's weird that we're spending more money keeping these things closed is they're saying, isn't that somehow a violation of the antideficiency act? i would actually -- this is actually an issue that is sort of well within the president's discretion. the law is 31, u.s.c., 1342. and it says that without congress passing a bill, there

are only a few sorts of thanges can continue operating -- things that can continue operating. the phrase is, emergency, emergency authorizations involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. and this is where we get the o.p.m. rule that says that essential personnel get to keep working. and each of the three branches of government gets to sort of define for itself what is necessary to protect the safety of human life and federal property. so, it seems that what the park service is saying here is that the only way for us to secure this property is by putting up these massive barricades and that seems to be odd to folks. i don't think it would be challenged in court. i think that it's sort of a safe bet for the park service to make these -- to say these words but it doesn't pass the smell test to most americans or who are with their families trying to visit. and in fact there's another

argument against this which is that for many years the executive branch, o.m.b. issued a regulation that said what sorts of things are essential? well, we get to keep security on the payroll. so actually the park security is still getting paid. so it seems odd that the park service would be shutting down a park for security reasons when their entire security personnel is allowed to still be staffing these monuments. so that's just kind of strange. the second issue i'd like to alk about is the blocking of private or co-owned property. the congressman mentioned lake immediate. and there was a news story out very recently about a whole bunch of folks with vacation homes in lake mead being told to take a hike. get out. they have year leases and somewhere in their lease there might be something about having to have a second home since these are vacation homes.

and so folks are asking why, why are private places being shut down? when i was in philadelphia, i understand that the independence tavern was shut down as well. that was open in 1773, it was frequented by some of the founders. it's a private establishment on federal land that serves, you know, food and alcohol and it's very well regulated and it was shut down too. and so the question is why? i also heard that the park service tried to shut down the mount vernon park and mount vernon is privately owned. and it's privately run. but the park service got a little overzealous and tried to barricade the parking lot of the privately owned mount vernon historical site. so, this seems a little bit odd to folks and i would just point out that this is one of those areas where what matters very strongly are the lease agreements and the property rights of the owners.

many people own property on federal land, many people have different kind of businesses they run on federal land. and i would encourage those land owners not to necessarily take the park service or any federal agency at their word when they come to you and tell to you shut down. take a look at your lease and see if you have rights and if do you, you should recognize that and you should stick up for yourself. one of the other things i just heard about was that the federal government has sort of started to reopen certain places. so the independence tavern was allowed to reopen, provided that pennsylvania would foot the bill. the statue of liberty was allowed to reopen provided that new york state would foot the bill. this actually does seem to me to be a little bit of a problem. because 13, u.s.c., 134 1, again the antideficiency act, says that absent a congressional appropriation, because congress has the power of the purse, unless congress says it's ok to spend money on something, it's not ok to spend money on that. and so i don't know what the

legal justification is for the department of the interior to permit states to foot the bill when there's a law that says that the federal government cannot let anyone foot the bill if there's not an appropriation involved. so, i would be very curious if members of congress would take a look at that. the third issue i'd like it talk about is the first amendment and this is a huge issue. this is something that again a lot of folks are talking about. the world war ii vets, you know, they fought for our country and they have a very strong instinctual response to things being shut down. i saw some sort of sign that someone had that said, normandy was closed too. so, the first amendment says that folks have free speech and they have free speech and the government has to have a good reason for shutting down public land or regulating public land before they can curtail the freedom of speech.

there's actually -- there are actually court cases, federal court cases from the d.c. circuit pointing out that, for example, the national mall is the traditional public forum. what that means is that folks -- when the government seeks to regulate these traditional public forums, the regulations need to be content-neutral. they need to be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and they need to leave open alternative channels of communication. so that's the task. and now we ask, you know, is the national mall a traditional public forum? and are these signs or these barricades, what -- where those do these fall? on what side of the line do these fall? what can an average citizen do on the national mall? well, there are also court cases that say that thinking or reading or passing out literature, those are all first amendment-protected activities. so it would be very strange for a park service person, if i'm walking through one of these barricaded areas, where the sign

says, you know, closed except for first amendment activity, it would be very strange if a park service person actually tried to kick me out. because -- or anyone out. because if you simply say, well, i'm think being politics, that's a protected activity. if you say i'm going to go read a book, that's a protected activity. so it seems like any citizen can walk into these areas and there's essentially nothing that the park service can do to you. and in fact from what i understand, i had another lawyer in our department here go down and try to find out what authority the parks thought they had to kick people out and they said, we're not actually asking people what they're doge, we're enforcing it to the best of our abilities. [laughter] so, if you're a private citizen, remember that you do have rights here. there's a second problem with the federal government and that's they do have these signs that say, closed except for first amendment activities. well, what i just explained was that almost anything can constitute a first amendment

activity so it says you're not allowed in here unless you're allowed in here. so anybody's pretty much allowed in here. what is the point of the sign? i would say that the point of the sign is largely just to scare people a away. and on that ground, the court -- the federal court has struck down things like this before and folks can sue. the aclu could sue if they were interested over these policies and i would encourage, you know, folks to do that if they think that's the right thing to do. the first amendment is designed to protect, you know, the average joe. these families that are going and trying to learn about our history, to visit memorials. it's not designed simply for lawyers. and so there's an added problem with all of these policies. and that is that they are vague. there's a great line from justice potter stewart in case -- e he points out that the a man of average intelligence shouldn't need to guess at what

ordinances and things mean. and i think that's exactly what's happening here. , so i would just like to close then with a couple takeaways. first of all, park rangers. what should you do if you're asked to shut down speech or kick people out? i would just say that if there's an ambiguity in what you're being told, to err on the side of permissiveness. to err on the side of the first amendment and to take a look at the folks and simply say, you know, i'm here to protect property, i'm not here to enforce political points. so, over on this side of the spectrum, if you're a park ranger, there are things you're asked to do on a daily basis such as be a little aggressive with enforcing x, y and z. you have to follow your boss he says. that. and on this end you're being asked to kick out all people of one race, for example, and you clearly don't have to follow that. the first amendment falls somewhere in the middle. use your judgment if you're an ferre or park ranger.

and i would also encourage my second takeaway is for citizens who are trying to visit these memorials. know your rights. heritage, we have heritage guide to the constitution. i encourage folks to take a look at that online. there are sections on the first amendment written by eminent legal scholars, law professors and the like. take a look at that and learn your rights. i'm not encouraging folks to go to these areas and pick up the barricades and drop them off in front of the white house. that's a little bit -- that may have additional property or vandalism concerns. but certainly if you're simply, you know, paying no attention to these signs that may not be legally there, that, you know, you seem to be well within your rights there. so, it seems to be -- despite what the park service may be saying, it should be business as usual for folks and their families who want to visit, to see our nation's capital, to visit philadelphia and see where independence hall or the

constitution was debated. or places like lake meade or to enjoy our national parks. the problem is that this is not an academic issue. there are fines being given out. there are people that are being arrested. and i would just hope -- a lot of these cases seem to be slam dunks. so i hope people would challenge these. it's very difficult to be on the receiving end here. so if there's a very authoritative-looking state trooper or park ranger telling you to get off the property, you know, i understand if you don't necessarily stand up for yourself. but i would hope that there are a few enterprising aclu types or etc. that would stand up to this kind of encroachment. >> thank you, andrew. so, there will be a hearing this week and i believe it's tomorrow in the house on the -- investigating the actions of the national park service. and essentially what week of been talking about is a thing

called washington monument syndrome. and this was begun in 1969. this is the term given to the political tactic of making, as you put it, the average joe feel the affect of a partial government shutdown and in essence it is making life difficult for average u.s. citizens, for a political impasse here in washington. the first parks director to engage in this activity and to sort of pioneer the idea of washington monument syndrome was george hartzog and he was soon after that dismissed. i think that i'm correct in saying, and auto i've screggetted -- and i've investigated this, that during this partial government shutdown, there have been mormonments and memorials closed than in any other shutdown in our history. and the stories that you see coming out and even on social

media, people posting video clips and all of this, kind of reveals an intimidating activity by park service personnel. certainly not all are engaging in this and i quoted earlier a park service employee who described it as, quote-unquote, disgusting. that they were asked to make average american citizens feel so displaced and inconvenienced. through no fault of their own. so, one of the major questions that i'm interested in here, and i want to know the opinion of each of you, is is this the sort of high water mark of this sort of activity? it's obviously violating the spirit of why we have memorials and public places like this, because the very ideals they are supposed to represent. we've obviously seen an overstep by this administration and the park service in particular this month.

is this going to get worse with every shutdown or can we hope that this will be the extent to which american citizens will be treated in this manner? >> with respect to lake meade, again, i have heard some property owners, and there was a piece i think in "the washington times" interviewing them, some property owners pointed out that they have had leases on this federal land for 30 years and that includes during the last shutdown in 1995 and they were not asked by the clinton administration to vacate. and now they're abouting -- they're being asked to vacate. there's something new. i also don't recall read being any cases where -- reading about any cases where ordinary folks got so angry that they started violating some of these orders. people are pretty -- american citizens -- they know their rights, but they also know that they're not going to fight every fight. and so they are largely compliant even when sometimes

policies are a little bad. but i can't think of any case in my mind where there was a policy that large numbers of world war ii vets or folks just started storming the barricades so to speak. and that seems new as well. >> i think this sort of backfired because the flashpoint was, the world war ii memorial. i don't think anybody expected dish don't remember all 17 shutdowns but this i think was something new. where the vets and especially those coming on the honor flight arrived to see the thing barricaded and they were outraged because after all this is their memorial just as it's our memorial. and it was barricaded. and i think the reaction really set off a kind of chain reaction where the attention was paid not only to the memorials here and the subverting of their purpose all over the country. i think that was expected. >> i think that's right. and of course social media, for example, highlighted the story

of this man who saw the grass overgrown at the lincoln memorial and got his lawn mower, push lawn mower, and went to mow the grass, since it wasn't being done. and that to my mind is a great act of volunteer public mindedness by a private citizen. and of course he was asked to leave. another example is you saw the 200-year-old senate clock stop ticking. not because there wasn't a living, breathing human standing next to it who could have wound it, but because the official winder had been furloughed. and this does represent, i think, something fundamentally very troubling and it reveals a new sort of attitude. especially by the park service, toward the american people. and it's sort of striking out against them, not as a people who have a government who are -- who are care takers of their public lands, but somehow to punish americans for daring to

cut funding. so it's i think quite problematic. and i certainly hope that we'll never see this again in a future shutdown. so now we're going to take your questions. again we have mikes. if you'll just raise your hand nd please identify yourself. >> richard. question for bruce cole. can you give us an idea of the lay of the land of the committee at you were on, who were the people and what are the likely outcomes and what are the shoals on the different shorelines and so on? >> i'm just starting to navigate those treacherous waters right now. [laughter] while the commission is composed of -- it's bipartisan commission composed of four representatives, four senators, and four citizens members, and i'm really just starting, i've

only been on the commission for a couple of months or so. and i've been making visits to the other commissioners and sorts of taking their temperature about how they feel about the memorial and getting advice and talking to all sorts of people. so, it's a little too early for me to predict what's going to appen. >> ben, i'm an intern here at heritage, actually. what i wanted to ask you was, in relation to something that you've actually said just before the questions, mr. cole, and that is that when the world war ii veterans showed up, a lot of their outrage because -- came because this was their memorial. it belongs to them and that's how it's been seen. in a lot of ways i think people are raising up and being outraged at this entire shutdown because they're saying their memorials go and that's every memorial, not just the world war ii one. that's been something that's from the nation to the government. my question to you is, how do you think we can get people to start to understand that it is

far more than just the memorials, that it reaches into every area of what's going on right now? and that's becoming more and more the government decreeing what goes to the people instead of the other way around nowadays? >> lets me follow up on that first question. i think that the commissioners want to get this done. i think everybody realizes this needs to be done. i think the question is how it's to be done. it's not only the world war ii memorial. i got an email from a friend of mine whose daughter was visiting normandy. and -- with a bunch of vets who were there at the same time. herp locked out. they climbed over the stone fences and got in this will they shooed off off by -- by the thorts. i am really surprised because what you see is that these monuments, world war ii memorial especially, are symbols. and people start asking the question, well, those are the

vets' memorials, those are my memorials, why am i not able to visit? something that i actually own. and what authority does the park service have to keep me out of it? this is i think -- goes to your point. and i think this is a very healthy exercise, when people begin to feel, what is their relation to the government? there was a wonderful piece by mark stein when he talked about the magna carta and he said, you know, it's true that, you know, the english peasants who were benefiting from the act had more access to the commons than americans who are living in 2013. . i hope there are ramifications of it. >>